And since you mentioned Third Reich and USSR , those were easily identifiable threats in their own time.
Actually...not. The NAZIs certainly are easy to see in retrospect...but at the time these things began happening:
1) The UK was led by Chamberlain who wanted peace...and was willing to negotiate it and hope against hope and not have to spend more money on the military to achieve it because they did not want more war after WW I and then the economic difficulties of the late 20s and early 30s. The great, disasterous statement of, "Peace in out time," based on a deal he made with a madman and a murderous tyrant.
2) Russia and Germany were hostile to each other in the mid-to late 30s. No one expected them to get together over Poland and then ally for two years. The Fascists hated the Communists and vice versa...and yet they did ally and split up Poland and Finland and others. That was not identifiable, easily or otherwise at the time. It caused very severe problems in planning and expectations about the war, its length, and what it would take to win if both Russia and Germany remained allied.
The entire world avoided a much longer and even more costly World War than it already became when Hitler invaded Russia and they began fighting each other on a titanic scale.
Sorry, but my parents lived through it and fought it. My Dad in the PTO against Japan, along with several Uncles. Other Uncles in Europe. My Uncle Al, my mother's only brother, was killed over Germany and I know whereof I speak.
3) The US for years had a huge contingent that wanted to avoid any involvement in the developing "War in Europe." We were willing to sell equipment and food (and did lend-lease) to the UK, and some people even went over there to help them fight, forming up ad hoc air wings...but the government did not become directly involved until after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and that galvanized the nation...and war with Japan meant war with Germany too.
So, please do not tell me how "easily identifiable," it was. It was not. I spoke of these things for years with those who experienced it first hand. I spent several years in Germany and made many friends there, and spoke of it with them too. The events of those days are things we can scarcely imagine, on either side...and it all led to a few madmen in Hitler and Tojo and Mussolini...and Jo Stalin too as far as I am concerned...and a lot of complacency by people who did not want to get involved and who did not believe the evil that was developing...all coming together to lead the world into World War and the loss of tens of millions of people...and then a continuation of it in the Cold War for another fifty years.
Not necessarily high seas . They could be tempted to go and attack countries like Iran (hostile rhetorics but no real threat ) or bog themselves in another Afghanistan . In other words , trying to play imperial politics without adequate resources.
Really letting the cat out of the bag now, eh?
Imperial politics? Really? The US was hit by Al Quida and hard, killing thopsuands of innocent American, and the Taliban gave them open sanctuary and refused to stop...so we fought them and defeated them. England was later hit by the same blokes. Nothing "Imperial," about it, and it is rediculous to try and chacterize it as such. The US is not conquering and holding Afghanistan or Iraq as outr own territory now are we? Neither is the UK. We have tried to help the Afghans with infrastructure and a more stable government, and paid dearly in lives, bllod and treasure for the attempt and you shame those sacrifices and that blood by trying to equate it to "imperialsim." IMHO, in Afghanistan, we should not have tried all of that. We should have thumped them real hard like we did, and then told the people there not to allow such animals to come amongst them again and attack us or we'd come back and do it again.
But there is no imperialsim here. What a ludicrous comment. Look at the last 100+ years. That's not what the US does. It would be uncivilized and despotic. Usually, when the US defeats an enemey (like Germany and Japan) we show compassion afterwards and try and help...and then if they are civilized and capable, they stand up and ultimately we become friends. Not always, but a lot of the time. That is nothing like imperialsim.
Considering how modern politics works , everybody sees elephant in the room , but no one is prepared to talk about it and risk their political future (and I'm not talking just about QEs , far from it ) . So things slide along until they cras.
Well I have been in some of the rooms for very major military acquisitions and I can tell you that you are wrong. Do people make mistakes? Yes. Do sometimes people take advantage and go beyond simple mistakes? Yes...but usually in the US and the UK, ultimately they are caught and brought to justice. But systems like this are planned and their impacts on the budget carefully laid out...and then later adjusted if necessary because of unforseen things.
About Soviet Union : I'm sure they also had plans and funds to maintain their huge military . Until everything "suddenly" crashed down . Well , it was not sudden , it was in the making for years , but few listened to voices of reason .
You make my point for me. Why didn't people, "listen to reason," do you suppose?
Because you were dealing with a single party, totalitarian state where a very few people made all the rules and enforced them at the point of a gun. Where fences and barriers thousands of miles long, with machine gun posts, sensors, and razor wire were constructed not to keep enemies out...but to keep their own people in! I lived along the West German/East German border in the 70s where NATO and Warsaw met. I personally know of many instances where people, who just wanted to get out of there...or wanted to reunite with their families when they had been seperated when the Iron Curtain came down, were killed simply because they wanted to leave.
Hard to reason with that kind of thinking.
Those regimes had all the power and did what they wanted with it...and they absolutely milked the entire population and had no desire to listen to anyone...that was the underlying cancer in the Soviet Union...and ultimately that is what brought it down when that total command economy was challenged to keep up with a vibrant, free economy.
A free economy that is not a perfect economy...and not perfect leaders by any stretch...but held in check by the will and voice of the people whom they are ultimately accountable to as opposed to thinking it is the other way around.
Now, there are definitly problems now with the free republics of the west. They have taken on far too much of an entitlement mentality where politicians are buying entire segments of the population with what they believe is a bottomless bank account...and printing faux currency to do it. That will ultimately catch up. People who can...need to work, and be free to chose a trade or profession to work in..and suffer the consequences if they choose not to...not because the government makes that happen, but because it happens as a part of the natural order of things. Society, because of its underlying moral fiber, should take care of those who really can't provide for themselves...but principally through families, churches and charities, at the local level and not through government. And please do not tell me that cannot work. If the people are moral it can and will work...I have seen it for most of my life when the government wasn't so involved with all of these programs. If the people are not moral...well, there will be no helping them in any case.
But the vast majority of people in the US and the UK are moral...and so there is great hope.
Government, on the other hand is brute force and not efficient at all at these types of things, and almost always it devolves into curruptuion anyway when the government tries it.
At least we have the tools to set it right...and I pray we will, because I agree that left unrestrained it can utimately bring nations down.
I just do not believe the US or the UK are on the cusp or verge of that in the near future barring some absolute outside shock that causes it. If that happens, the entire world will be caught up in it. As I said, short of that, the planning that has and is going on will keep things working for the life of the QEs at least, if not quite a bit longer.
We shall see.
But we have veered off course with this dicussion. It is supposed to be about the carriers and their technical and military capabilities...and not about politics and ideology.
We can just agree to disagree on whether the UK can afford the QEs or not...and time will ultimately give us all the answer.
but I could agree that most of the ships mentioned will be completed (or declared completed) . What I'm arguing is that Britain would not have funds to operate and and maintain them , and that they may end up badly neglected like once proud ships of Soviet Navy , quietly rusting in ports .
